Differences between revisions 31 and 32
⇤ ← Revision 31 as of 2019-04-18 17:21:41 →
Size: 3430
Editor: eleonora.capocasa
Comment: https://gwdoc.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/DocDB/0100/G1910087/001/FC_implementation.pdf
← Revision 32 as of 2019-04-18 17:22:12 → ⇥
Size: 3449
Editor: eleonora.capocasa
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 26: Line 26:
|| ||Frequency-dependent squeezing simulation and filter cavity implementation strategy in KAGRA mine || E.Capocasa ||[[https://gwdoc.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cgi-bin/private/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=10087|o]] || || ||Frequency-dependent squeezing simulation and filter cavity implementation strategy in KAGRA mine || E.Capocasa, M.Leonardi et al. ||[[https://gwdoc.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cgi-bin/private/DocDB/ShowDocument?docid=10087|o]] ||

Satellite Meeting on Future Upgrade of KAGRA

Main F2F Page

Date/Time/Venue

Apr. 18th (Thu) 13:30 - 18:30

Venue: Room 1320, Faculty of Science Bldg. 4, University of Tokyo Hongo Campus (note: different from the main F2F venue)

Access to the building can be found here: Faculty of Science Bldg. 4

Zoom(2) connection: https://zoom.us/j/6676627462

Program

Time

Subject and Title

Speaker

File

13:30-14:00

FPC white paper

Introduction from FPC and current status of the white paper

S. Haino and FPC

oo

14:00-15:00

Science cases

Review of KAGRA+ science cases

A.Nishizawa et al.

o

15:00-15:30

Break

15:30-18:30

Discussions on the technological issues

KAGRA+ upgrade options and roadmap towards O5

FPC et al.

o

Frequency-dependent squeezing simulation and filter cavity implementation strategy in KAGRA mine

E.Capocasa, M.Leonardi et al.

o

Issues and possible upgrades for cryogenic suspensions

K.Yamamoto, H.Vocca et al.

Kazuhiro Helios

Discussions

x

Minutes

  • How did we score the significance (Shinkai, Ando) ?
    • The significance is only in case of KAGRA upgrades but not for the general GW detector
  • It is suggested to use Feasibility only instead multiplying by significance (Ando)
    • We will consider for that
  • How do we weight between science and technology ? For example what if we have one strong science case which needs difficult technology or oppositely we can also make a judgement based on technological feasibilities
    • We should take both into account, is we achieve some upgrades in the next 5 years we have to put some weights on the feasibility. For the moment our recommending two options (FDsq and HF) also show strong science cases but more qualitative evaluation should be done

LCGT/Meeting/f2f/2019Apr/FuSat (last edited 2019-04-19 11:03:26 by SadakazuHaino)